What's Up With Lee?

[Maven]

Two items to report, one odd, the other a tacit acknowledgement of our efforts. (1) I recently returned a TL mold to Lee because it was casting .003" out-of-round: It was returned untouched with no letter/note of explanation. Don't they advertise no more than .001" variation? (2) Included with the aforementioned mold was a new instruction sheet that describes how to "leement" a new mold, specifically how to lap it and gently scrape the cavities to remove burrs. I'm not sure if this is good news, i.e., they read this board; or bad, i.e., they're conceding a quality control problem. Your thoughts on this?

[Bass Ackward]

It was returned untouched with no letter/note of explanation.

Paul,

The lack of a note should not be intrepreted as a lack of a message.

Had the note been in there it would have read, "Good enough, is good enough".

[grumble]

Since when is .003" out of round "good enuff?" Maybe in lead sinkers?

Mavin, have you called Lee about this? If such a call is unsuccessful, maybe we should ALL call them about it. I've defended them in the past, but this sounds too outrageous to let pass.

[StarMetal]

Grumble,

Probably get the same results as the fellow that recently posted about a new Weatherby rifle in 30-06 that had a groove diameter of something like .312 and Weatherby said it was within factory tolerances.

Joe

[44man]

I hope this is not the coming thing with Lee. I have returned several moulds to them and they made me new ones. I have been very happy with them and this scares me.

[grumble]

I have some loyalty to Lee Precision. They've gone out of their way to do things for me in the past, and while I don't expect them to have, with their low prices, the same sort of warranty excellence as RCBS, I DO expect them to correct obvious defects in workmanship.

Mavin, if you call them and don't get a reasonable response, let us know here. I'll be on the phone to them in a heartbeat (well, maybe not that fast, but pretty quick) to see if we can convince them that quality still counts.

[Maven]

Actually this is one of the few Lee molds I've had problems with. I must add that I haven't a pistol to test this CB in...yet and am curious how it will perform as a TL (not to be sized) design. Then again, I suppose I could size it to fit the throats of my yet-to-be purchased .44mag. and return it to Lee if it doesn't group. Be that as it may, I hope this isn't an omen of things to come!

[Possum]

I just sent one back last week. I'll let you know what they do.

[charlie / sw mo]

i sent a 6 cav mold and one of the unbreakabl primer punches back to lee and they sent me replacements with no comment. this was the 45 cal 230 gr t/lube mold . iv already cast up 70 lbs of bullets with it. sent it in around the middle of sept and got it back last friday. iv been using rooster lube--seems to work ok so far--50 bucks for a gallon of it. anybody else tried it?

charlie in sw mo

[Possum]

got my Lee mold back yesterday. They trued up the top of the mold, but I still see daylight between the two cavities. Personally, without casting a bullet from it yet, it still has the same problem it had when I sent it in. I will cast a few and see what happens. Looks like to me they made a few cosmetic changes to it and sent it back. I know they read my letter because they commented I could buy a custom mold from them if I need a different diameter.

[Maven]

After reading BaBore's post and having had a chance to cast with the [returned] mold, it seems Lee did something to improve it, but I don't know what (and they certainly didn't include a note/letter of explanation). Run-out is now between .001" - .002", but that varies with casting technique: I.e., ladel touching sprue holes (2 pours in essence) v. pouring both cavs. simultaneously. I removed the graphite film and resmoked the cavities hoping to achieve larger CB's and less run-out. I'll post again if things improve.